coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants’ personal details are listed in Annex I to this judgment.
6.  On various unspecified dates during the 1970-ties the applicants moved into flats in Mlini, Dubrovnik, as employees of the publicly-owned enterprise Mlini Hotels.
7.  On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo), which regulated the sale of publicly-owned flats previously let under protected tenancies, giving the right to holders of such tenancies of publicly-owned flats to purchase them from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions.
8.  Sometime after 1991 the Mlini Hotels were privatised.
9.  On various unspecified dates during the 1990-ies the applicants sought to purchase their flats from Mlini Hotels. Their requests were refused.
10.  On various dates during the 2000-ies Mlini Hotels brought separate civil actions in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against each of the applicants, seeking their eviction on the ground that they had no legal basis to occupy the flats.
11.  The applicants lodged their counterclaims, seeking recognition of their protected tenancy on the flats they occupied as well as judgments in lieu of the contracts of sale. They argued that they had been occupying the flats at issue for lengthy periods and paid the rent and all utility bills and had the right to permanently occupy those flats.
12.  On various dates the Dubrovnik Municipal Court reached decisions in the applicants’ cases. It accepted the plaintiff’s claims and dismissed the applicants’ counterclaims on the ground that the premises in dispute were not flats within the meaning of section 6 § 1(1) of the Housing Act because they did not concern a single construction unit. Furthermore, it held that the premises in question were situated in the plaintiff’s personal building designed for temporary accommodation for the plaintiff’s employees on which the applicants could not acquire protected tenancies.
13.  The applicants lodged their appeals arguing that they had been living in the flats at issue for lengthy periods, that they had no other place to live and that the flats had been allocated to them for permanent occupation. The first-instance judgments were all upheld by the Dubrovnik County Court.
14.  The applicants all lodged their constitutional complaints whereby they challenged the lower courts’ judgments ordering their eviction.
15.  The applicants were all forcefully evicted from the flats owned by the Mlini Hotels on 19 November 2010.
5.  The applicants were former employees of “Društveno preduzeće Industrija mesa ‘Crvena zvezda’” Kragujevac (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.
6.  On 15 October 2002 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Kragujevac opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 1079/02).
7.  The applicants duly submitted their claims for the payment of due salary arrears and related employment benefits.
8.  On 25 August 2003 and 11 October 2004 the Commercial Court accepted some of the applicants’ claims. As regards the remainder of their claims, it instructed them to initiate a regular civil suit. Two of the applicants did so and on 31 May 2004, 1 June 2004 and 21 January 2005 the Commercial Court ordered the debtor to pay them different amounts on account of salary arrears and related employment benefits, together with statutory interest and legal costs.
9.  On 20 February 2009 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings. This decision was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia on 27 March 2009 (no. 21/09) and became final on 16 July 2009.
10.  On 26 February 2010 the debtor ceased to exist.
11.  The court decisions rendered in the applicants’ favour on 25 August 2003, 11 October 2004, 31 May 2004, 1 June 2004 and 21 January 2005 (see paragraph 8 above) became final on an unspecified date. They remain only partly enforced to the present day.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Šabac.
5.  The applicant was employed by “Zorka-mineralna đubriva” AD, a socially/State-owned company based in Šabac (hereinafter – “the debtor”).
6.  On 10 April 2001 the Šabac Municipal Court, by a court order, gave effect to a settlement made by the applicant and the debtor. According to that settlement the debtor had to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and costs of proceedings.
7.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.
8.  On the same date the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
9.  On 4 April 2003 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.
10.  On 11 May 2007 the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 6 July 2007 the court continued the enforcement proceedings.
12.  On 24 June 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.
13.  On 26 March 2010 the applicant requested the court once again to continue the enforcement proceedings.
14.  On 27 December 2011 the court considered the request of 26 March 2010 to be a fresh application for the enforcement of the decision of 10 April 2001 and ordered the applicant to submit again a copy of that decision.
15.  As the applicant failed to comply with this this request on 30 January 2012 the court terminated the enforcement.
16.  On 3 July 2003 the Šabac Municipal Court ruled in the favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him certain sums in respect of salary arrears and costs of proceedings. This judgment became final on the same date.
17.  On 29 September 2004 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.
18.  On 30 September 2004 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
19.  On 4 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.
20.  On 11 May 2007 the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement proceedings.
21.  On 4 October 2007 the court continued the enforcement proceedings.
22.  On 3 March 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.
23.  On 10 July 2002 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process. The restructuring of the debtor is still ongoing.
5.  The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6.  By five judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 30 March 2009, 5 February 2001, 19 November 2001, 3 May 2000 and 13 December 2000 which became final on 12 November 2009, 23 August 2004, 26 October 2004, 26 April 2005 and 26 December 2001, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage with default interest at the statutory rate:
7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 24 December 2009, 22 October 2004, 27 May 2005, 6 September 2006 and 5 April 2002, respectively.
8.  The applicants, except for Mr Dragoslav Banjac and the Tutićs, complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On different dates the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the cases of Mr Draško Bokan, the Jovešs and the Kovačevićs. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would most likely have been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; AP 224/08 of December 2010, § 37).
9.  After an extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), between 25 March 2008 and 19 March 2013 the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only the legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued on the following dates:
 10.  Ms Smiljana Joveš, Mr Dragoslav Banjac, the Tutićs, and the Kovačevićs have already sold some or all of their bonds on the Stock Exchange.
5.  The applicant is a company incorporated in Moldova.
6.  On 13 February 2003 the Vadul lui Voda local council adopted a decision concerning the sale of a plot of land with a greenhouse on it to the applicant company. Subsequently, in March 2003, a contract was entered into for that purpose between the local council and the applicant company.
7.  On 15 June 2006 the local council adopted a decision revoking its previous decision. The applicant initiated proceedings against the local council.
8.  On 25 December 2006 the Vadul lui Voda local council introduced a counter action seeking the termination of the contract of sale between it and the applicant company on the grounds that the price asked for the property had been too low and that the land had been sold unlawfully owing to its proximity to a river. The applicant company opposed this action and argued, inter alia, that it was time-barred under the provisions of the Civil Code in force at the time the contract was entered into.
9.  On 13 April 2007 the Ciocana District Court rejected the applicant’s action but accepted that of the local council and declared the contract of sale null and void. The court held that the rules governing time limitation contained in the new Civil Code should apply. The court expressed of its own motion the opinion that the local council’s action had concerned the declaration of the absolute nullity of the contract of sale and that therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 217 of the new Civil Code, it could not be time-barred. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 5 September 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the applicant company and quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It upheld the applicant company’s action and dismissed the counter action lodged by the local council. The local council lodged an appeal on points of law.
11.  On 16 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal on points of law lodged by the local council. It quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and upheld the judgment of the Ciocana District Court of 13 April 2007. The Supreme Court did not state any position in respect of the applicant company’s initial defence concerning the statute of limitations. Only the representative of the local council was present at the Supreme Court hearing. The judgment of the Supreme Court was final.
3.  Standard procedures and treatment of “High-Value Detainees” in CIA custody (combined use of interrogation techniques)
4.  Conditions of detention at CIA detention facilities
5.  Closure of the HVD Programme 1.  Information supplied by the Polish Government in their written and oral submissions made in the present case and in the case of Al Nashiri v. Poland 2.  Facts supplied by the applicant in the present case and supplemented by the facts related in the case of Al Nashiri v. Poland and certain materials available in the public domain
1.  USS Cole bombing in 2000
2.  MV Limburg bombing
3.  Standard procedures and treatment of “High Value Detainees” in CIA custody (combined use of interrogation techniques)
4.  Conditions of detention at CIA detention facilities
5.  Closure of the HVD Programme 1.  Information supplied by the Polish Government in their written and oral submissions made in the present case and in the case of Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland 2.  Facts supplied by the applicant in the present case and supplemented by the facts related in the case of Abu Zubaydah v. Poland and certain materials available in the public domain
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kaposvár.
6.  The applicant suffers from a so-called psycho-social disability. On 3 October 2006 the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 concerning his psychiatric detention (see Gajcsi v. Hungary, no. 34503/03).
7.  On 12 January 2000 the Fonyód District Court placed the applicant under partial guardianship. As an automatic consequence flowing from Article 70(5) of the Constitution, as in force at the relevant time, his name was deleted from the electoral register.
8.  On 8 July 2008 the Kaposvár District Court reviewed the applicant’s situation and restored his legal capacity in all areas but health care matters. This change, however, did not restore his electoral rights.
9.  The applicant could not vote in the general elections held in Hungary on 11 April 2010, due to the restriction on his legal capacity which resulted in the deprivation of his electoral rights.
6.  The applicant lives in Budapest.
7.  On 1 July 2002 the applicant concluded an employment contract with a State-owned specialised financial institution.
8.  On 27 July 2003 the Hungarian Government adopted Government Decree no. 2173/2003. (VII. 29.) on the remuneration of senior professionals within business entities under majority State control. The applicant’s employment contract was amended in accordance with the Decree and stipulated, in case of ordinary dismissal, severance payment equal to two months’ salary and remuneration corresponding to a notice period of eight months.
9.  On 30 June 2010 the applicant’s employment was terminated by mutual agreement. Under this agreement, on 5 July 2010 the applicant’s former employer paid the applicant, after taxes, a net amount of 13,879,643 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 46,300 euros (EUR)), amounting to eight months’ salary.
10.  Under new legislation (see paragraph 11 below) the gross amount corresponding to the above payment was subsequently taxed at a 98% rate in its part exceeding HUF 3.5 million; the income tax and social security contributions already paid (see paragraph 9 above) were deducted from the tax payable. Thus, the applicant had to pay an additional HUF 11,296,051 as special tax, until 20 May 2011.
6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest.
7.  On 18 May 2009 the applicant, a left-wing politician, participated in a peaceful demonstration wearing a five-pointed red star on his jacket. A police patrol which was present called on the applicant to remove the star, which was then confiscated. The applicant’s complaint to the Head of National Police was to no avail.
8.  Subsequently, he challenged the measure in court.
9.  On 29 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his action. The court held that the display of the red star contravened section 269/B of the Criminal Code and consequently its confiscation was justified under sections 115(1) and 151(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10.  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 8 June 2011, holding that the police measure had been lawful, despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008), whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the premises.
11.  The applicant incurred altogether 1,115 euros in legal costs.
5.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1963 and 1989 and live in Paks and Budapest respectively.
6.  At the material time, Mr Vajnai was Vice-President and Ms Noé and Mr Bakó were activists of the Workers’ Party (Munkáspárt), a registered left-wing political party. The party had no known intention of participating in Hungarian political life in defiance of the rule of law.
7.  On 21 December 2008 the applicants organised an event in front of a shopping mall in Budapest, entitled “Anti-Capitalist Santa Claus”, with the intention to demonstrate against consumerism, draw attention to poverty, point out the shortcomings of market economy, and demand free internet access for all.
8.  To express their affiliation with Communism, four persons, including the applicants, displayed a sheet and a flag with a five-pointed red star and distributed leaflets with their political message, depicting red stars.
9.  In application of section 269/B(1) of the Criminal Code, a police patrol which was present called on the applicants to terminate the demonstration, checked their identity and committed them to Budapest VI District Police Department for interrogation.
10.  On 23 December 2008 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Board against the police measures. They relied on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights adopted in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008). They referred to the Court’s finding that the prosecution for having worn a red star had amounted to a violation of Mr Vajnai’s freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention.
11.  The applicants’ complaints were dismissed by the Complaints Board on 4 March 2009.
12.  The applicants’ further complaints against the measures were dismissed by the District Police Department on 22 May 2009. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Chief Police Commander, acting as a second-instance authority, on 17 November 2009.
13.  On 29 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ requests for judicial review. The court held that the display of the red star contravened section 269/B of the Criminal Code, despite the Vajnai judgment, whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the premises. Consequently, the applicants’ identity check and committal to the Police Department was justified under sections 29 (1) and 33 (1) of Act no. XXXIV of 1994 on the Police.
14.  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 22 June 2011 (in the case of Mr Bakó), 27 June 2011 (in the case of Ms Noé), and 5 September 2011 (in the case of Mr Vajnai), endorsing in essence the first-instance decisions’ reasoning.
15.  The applicants, jointly (they had a lawyer in common), incurred altogether 2,760 euros in legal costs.
5.  The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Arkhangelsk.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 19 February 2001 the applicant brought a court action against the Social Security Fund of the Russian Federation (Фонд социального страхования Российской Федерации) for compensation of health damage.
8.  On 4 April 2001 her claim was dismissed by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk. The decision was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for a fresh examination to the same court.
9.  On 3 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Social Security Fund (i) to calculate the amount of the lump-sum compensation for the period from 1 January 2000 to May 2002 and of the monthly compensation which should be paid from 1 June 2002, (ii) to pay these amounts to the applicant, and (iii) to index-link the monthly payments in future in accordance with national law.
10.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13 June 2002.
11.  The applicant states that no lump-sum compensation was paid to her.
12.  On 26 August 2002 the Social Security Fund calculated the monthly payments due to the applicant as of 15 November 2001.
13.  On 18 December 2002 the President of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court lodged with the Presidium of that court an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 3 June 2002. He also suspended the execution of the judgment pending the supervisory review proceedings.
14.  On the same date the Arkhangelsk Regional Court informed the applicant that the Presidium would examine her case on 25 December 2002.
15.  On 25 December 2002 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 3 June 2002 stating that the first instance court had incorrectly applied domestic law: the lump-sum compensation should have been calculated from 15 November 2001 and not 1 January 2000. The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the first instance court.
16.  On 25 June 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.
17.  On 28 July 2003 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.
4.  The applicant worked as a deputy chief guard in “Lviv Railways”, a State-owned company.
5.  On 26 October 2009 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant suspecting that he, against bribes, had covered up thefts from the company’s premises in conspiracy with S. and D.
6.  On 3 November 2009 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention stating that “[The applicant] committed serious crimes, he does not admit his guilt, if at liberty [he] will influence witnesses and other persons involved in the criminal case. [As the applicant] works as a policeman, [he] is well aware of how to obstruct the investigation and justice”. There is no evidence in the case-file that the applicant worked as a policemen prior to or during the events described in the present application. It remains unknown whether S. and D. were also arrested or remained at liberty.
7.  On 9 November 2009 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
8.  On 25 December 2009 the Galytskyy Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 February 2010 on the grounds that “not all the applicant’s accomplices were detained ... [the investigative authorities] keep receiving complaints [from persons who gave bribes to the applicant]. If at liberty the applicant will have an opportunity to obstruct the investigation or abscond”. On 30 December 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
9.  On 22 February 2010 the Galytskyy Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 April 2010 stating that “the accused committed serious crimes, he does not admit his guilt and refuses to testify, while if at liberty [the applicant], who has higher education and extensive work experience [as a guard], might influence witnesses, obstruct the investigation and abscond”.
10.  On 22 April 2010 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 26 July 2010 stating that there was a need to carry out a number of investigative measures in the case, the applicant was charged with serious crimes, he might abscond, obstruct the investigation, or continue his criminal activities.
11.  On an unspecified date the preliminary investigations in the applicant’s case were completed and the case was submitted to the Sykhiv District Court of Lviv for trial.
12.  On 17 August 2010 the Sykhiv District Court, holding a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against the applicant, upheld the applicant’s preventive measure without providing any reasons for doing so or fixing a time-limit for the applicant’s detention.
13.  On 16 February 2012 the Sykhiv Court allowed the applicant’s request for change of a preventive measure on health grounds. On the same date the applicant was released against an undertaking not to abscond.